MEAWW.COM / NEWS / CELEBRITY NEWS

'Are you s***ting me?' Washington Post slammed for BIZARRE editor's note on defamatory Amber Heard op-ed

The day after the verdict of the defamation trial, Washington Post added an editor's note to the 2018 op-ed written by Amber Heard

The much-awaited verdict of the controversial defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard was announced on June 1. The jury found the accusations made by Heard in the Washington Post op-ed "I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change" defamatory, which led to Depp winning the trial.

The next day, Washington Post added an editor's note to the 2018 op-ed. "Editor's note, June 2, 2022: In 2019, Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard for defamation arising out of this 2018 op-ed. On June 1, 2022, following a trial in Fairfax County, Va. Circuit Court, a jury found Heard liable on three counts for the following statements, which Depp claimed were false and defamatory: (1) 'I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change.' (2) 'Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out.' (3) 'I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real-time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.'"

READ MORE

'Precious, priceless, powerful': Moment Camille Vasquez mouths 'we won' at team after trial verdict

JOHNNY DEPP WINS! Jury delivers actor a staggering $15 million victory, but Heard gets $2 million

The note concluded with, "The jury separately found that Depp, through his lawyer Adam Waldman, defamed Heard in one of three counts in her countersuit." Since the jury found the third statement by Waldman to be defamatory, Heard was awarded $2 million as compensatory damages even though she lost the defamation trial against Depp. The six-week-long trial was the source of different opinions, trends, memes, and discussions.

Depp had sued Heard for $50 million after she wrote the op-ed and claimed to be a victim of domestic violence. Even though the article did not name Depp, the actor's lawsuit stated, "The op-ed depended on the central premise that Ms. Heard was a domestic abuse victim and that Mr. Depp perpetrated domestic violence against her." Heard then countersued Depp for $100 million in relation to three statements made by Depp's attorney, Adam Waldman.

One user tweeted, "@washingtonpost you guys added an editor's note to Amber's op-ed. You mentioned the 3 statements. But you FAILED to mention that the WHOLE thing was to be used for context. The whole thing was bullshit, basically. Why not add these jury instructions to the editor's note?" Another noted, "So The Washington Post have added some BS editors note to the article, & tomorrow they'll have a new article by Amber Heard supporter Charlotte Proudman. Wow. #deppvsheard #insulttoinjury."

A third said, "So the Washington post, rather than take down an article that was only yesterday proved to be defamatory, they have added an editors note, which if you ask me is still in favour of #AmberTurd which basically means republishing it the day AFTER the verdict, are you s***ting me?!" A fourth added, "@washingtonpost so you think it's appropriate to just put an 'editors note' on an op-ed that defames and lies about someone? Won't be reading your bs anymore! Not that it was any good to begin with!"

While one felt, "@washingtonpost even with your editors note tagged in the op ed your still lying unbelievable! Amber admitted on the stand under cross by Camille that she wrote it about Johnny! Why? Why? Why? Are supporting an abuser? Where has your journalistic integrity gone? SHAME SHAME," another wrote, "There is absolutely no reason for the Washington Post to include Amber Heard's counterclaim in their editor's note on the defamatory op-ed, they're still trying to appeal to Amber's side... and it's still not good enough for Eve Barlow."

Disclaimer: This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.